Although it seems fruitless to debate, I feel I must correct your erroneous data.
According to your numbers no viable babies get aborted! --Since you claim babies aren't viable until 26 weeks & that it's illegal after 24.

This is why almost no abortions are performed after 20 weeks - less than 1%, and it's only legal up to 24 weeks.

Really? A simple google search finds 10 clinics, most specifying that they abort through the 26th week, and some saying into the 3rd trimester. Look for yourself: http://www.abortion.com/abortion_clinics_late_term.php
Abortion is legal up to the point the baby clears the birth canal, though different states may institute restrictions.

This quote is abortionist Dr. Tiller bragging on his website:
"We have an unparalleled record of safey in late abortion services and we have more experience in late abortion services over 24 weeks than anyone else currently practicing in the Western Hemisphere, Europe and Australia." He states he has personally performed over 60,000 abortions, and late term is his specialty.

Be "pro-choice" if you want, but don't delude yourself that healthy, viable babies aren't among the ones being killed.

Abortions may be 'down', but it's still over 1,000,000 a year. I'll be holding my applause for now.

Really? A simple google search finds 10 clinics, most specifying that they abort through the 26th week, and some saying into the 3rd trimester. Look for yourself: http://www.abortion.com/abortion_clinics_late_term.php
Abortion is legal up to the point the baby clears the birth canal, though different states may institute restrictions.

This quote is abortionist Dr. Tiller bragging on his website:
"We have an unparalleled record of safey in late abortion services and we have more experience in late abortion services over 24 weeks than anyone else currently practicing in the Western Hemisphere, Europe and Australia." He states he has personally performed over 60,000 abortions, and late term is his specialty.

Be "pro-choice" if you want, but don't delude yourself that healthy, viable babies aren't among the ones being killed.

Abortions may be 'down', but it's still over 1,000,000 a year. I'll be holding my applause for now.

This is why debating with pro-lifers is pointless. Not only do they drag up old topics without checking the date, but they also don't really look at what they are linking to.

Yes, I looked at that page. Let's see, there were 4 clinic links that led to a "this domain is not available", 5 that specified they did abortions to 26 weeks, and 1 that specified it did abortions to 26 weeks. I'm very unclear as to where you are able to make this statement. Second, late term abortion refers to anything over 20 weeks. To look at the legal standing of that:
In 13 states it is outright illegal after 24 weeks. In 10 states, a second physician must approve, and in 9 a physician must be present in case of viability. 40 states have laws banning abortion post-viability (physician must provide evidence in some of those), and they are also included in the 18 states that ban partial birth abortion.
Abortion is also not a guarranteed service. Doctors can choose, within the confines of their state law, whether to provide these services or not, and under what cap.

But hey, if you want to continue a fruitless topic into February that stopped at least two weeks ago, be my guest. Though being so pro-life you might put your time to better use actually doing something about the unwanted children already here._________________"The greatest sign of success for a teacher... is to be able to say, "The children are now working as if I did not exist."
- M. MontessoriProud non-member of the HSLDA

Just because the domain is 'not available' does not mean the CLINIC is not still open and performing abortions. -- I wish it did. -- If you research further (or even just click on mini page) you'll see.

You say "doctors can CHOOSE ...(not to perform abortions)" like that's a bad thing? You want them compelled to? So much for "choice"

You are right that not every state offers every type of abortion. If it is legal in some, I'd have to conclude that it is legal in some.

I agree that there is usually no persuasion done in these type of debates. I posted because I did not want the inaccuracy of the "viability at 26 weeks" and "no abortions after 24 weeks" inaccuracies to go unaddressed since some do read these threads even after they have cooled.

I have been reading this thread with interest, though I have not read the most recent posts (I started at the beginning and there is a lot to read through!); therefore I don't know if someone said what I am about to or not. I want to comment on the supposed "exception" of abortion being okay for ectopic pregnancy or in a case where the mother has cancer or other potentially terminal illness. Once you open the door for an exception in regards to "the life of the mother," you have just opened the door for ALL abortions! That is a loophole that will never close. I myself used to reluctantly believe that abortions for ectopic pregnancies were okay, because I knew of no other solution, and figured if a mother did nothing in that case, then BOTH her and the baby would die. Well, it turns out there is another option...

Here is a portion of a very interesting article that I read on the subject, which ultimately changed my mind:

"When the life of the mother is truly threatened by her pregnancy, if both lives cannot simultaneously be saved, then saving the mother’s life must be the primary aim. If through our careful treatment of the mother’s illness the pre-born patient inadvertently dies or is injured, this is tragic and, if unintentional, is not unethical and is consistent with the pro-life ethic. But the intentional killing of an unborn baby by abortion is never necessary.

Most of what passes as a therapeutic, or medically-necessary abortion, is not necessary at all to save the mother’s life. For example, if a mother has breast cancer and requires immediate chemotherapy to survive that can kill the baby, the physician will frequently recommend a therapeutic abortion. Another example: if a mother has life-threatening seizures that can only be controlled by medication that will kill or severely deform her unborn child, the physician will frequently prescribe a therapeutic abortion. In both of these cases, the abortion is not necessary to protect the mother’s health. The necessary medication may injure or kill the pre-born child, but this is no justification for intentionally killing the child. If the child is injured or dies from the medication prescribed to the mother to save her life, the injury was unintentional and, if truly medically necessary, not unethical.

Let us illustrate this principle further: if a rescuer is venturing into a burning vehicle to try to save its injured occupants, and is only able to save one of the two occupants, is it justifiable for him to then take out his gun and shoot the occupant he was unable to save? Of course not! Intentionally killing those you were not able to save is never justified in healthcare. We have the technology and expertise to provide quality healthcare to a pregnant woman without intentionally killing her unborn baby, regardless of the severity of her disease.

We are convinced that much of the pressure physicians place upon ailing women to get a therapeutic abortion is due to fear of malpractice suits. Two female patients have reported to me that physicians unduly pressured them into getting an abortion because their contraception failed and they conceived at the same time that they were taking a medication that could be very injurious to an unborn child. The motive for prescribing an abortion in such cases is not compassion, but completely selfish. The potential of a malformed or mentally retarded child does not ever justify killing the child, malpractice threats notwithstanding. It is always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being, even if you are going to get sued if you let them live.

As we now carefully consider a scenario when the mother’s life would be truly threatened by her pregnancy, let us remind ourselves of our two basic premises: human life begins at fertilization, and it is absolutely wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings. We must stand true to these foundational principles through every emotional appeal and in every tragic scenario if we are to have any principles at all for which to stand.

“What About an Ectopic Pregnancy?”

The abortion exception for the life of the mother is the exception that most commonly seduces the sincere pro-lifer. The scenario in which this exception is most frequently packaged is an ectopic pregnancy, which is when the embryo attaches somewhere inside the mother’s body in a place other than the inner lining of the uterus. It is argued that in an ectopic pregnancy, an abortion must be performed in order to save the mother’s life.

What is rarely realized is that there are several cases in the medical literature where abdominal ectopic pregnancies have survived! There are no cases of ectopic pregnancies in a fallopian tube surviving, but several large studies have confirmed that time and patience will allow for spontaneous regression of the tubal ectopic pregnancy the vast majority of the time. So chemical or surgical removal of an ectopic pregnancy is not always necessary to save the mother’s life after all.

However, if through careful follow-up it is determined that the ectopic pregnancy does not spontaneously resolve and the mother’s symptoms worsen, surgery may become necessary to save the mother’s life. The procedure to remove the ectopic pregnancy may not kill the unborn child at all, because the unborn child has likely already deceased by the time surgery because necessary. But even if not, the procedure is necessary to save the mother’s life, and the death of the unborn baby is unavoidable and unintentional.

A chemical abortion with a medicine called methotrexate is often recommended by physicians to patients with early tubal ectopic pregnancies, when the baby may still be alive, to decrease the chances of a surgical alternative being necessary later, but we have found this to be an unnecessary risk to human life. We offer the following true case to demonstrate this point.

One patient was diagnosed with a tubal ectopic pregnancy by her obstetrician, and he informed her that they were fortunate to have made the diagnosis early and that she should have a methotrexate abortion. The patient was pro-life, and did not want to take the medicine, but the physician insisted. The baby was not going to survive, he argued, and a chemical abortion now could prevent the need for a surgical procedure later. The chemical abortion would lessen her chances of a rupture of her fallopian tube and subsequent life-threatening hemorrhage. The chemical abortion was also better at preserving future fertility than surgical removal of the ectopic pregnancy later. Feeling like she had no other reasonable alternative, she took the methotrexate.

However, there was a complication. Two weeks later, she still had vaginal bleeding and pelvic discomfort. A repeat ultrasound confirmed the physician’s worst fears: his patient was pregnant with twins – one in the fallopian tube, and one in the uterus! He missed the uterine pregnancy in his ultrasound examination, and that baby was dying from his prescription.

Holding off surgery and watchful waiting in this case might have resulted in spontaneous resolution of the tubal pregnancy or would have required surgical removal of the tubal pregnancy when the embryo was likely to be dead, but in both cases the uterine pregnancy would probably have survived. Unfortunately, the chemical abortion killed both babies, much to the dismay of this young pro-life woman.

It is only ethical to remove the tubal pregnancy if spontaneous resolution does not occur after watchful waiting and if the physician is 100% certain that there are no twins. At this point, the embryo in the fallopian tube is likely to be dead and, even if not, the death is unavoidable and unintentional, and the procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother.

In conclusion, there are no occasions in which the intentional killing of the pre-born child is justified. Scientific fact and divine law are clear: life begins at conception, and there are no exceptions to the prohibition of intentionally killing an innocent human being. We must stand true to these foundational principles through every emotional appeal and in every tragic scenario if we are to have any principles at all for which to stand."

I suppose even this proposed treatment for ectopic pregnancies leaves open the slight possibility that when removing the embryo, it would not be dead. The difference would be the careful watching and non-rush to an indiscriminate chemical abortion, which could also kill another forming life in the case of twins.

That being said: Does anyone know why a doctor can't surgically remove an ectopic pregnancy and implant it in the uterus? Even if the success rate for that was super low, at least they would be trying to preserve life instead of destroying it. If couples can undergo infertility treatment where the sperm and egg are joined outside the uterus and can successfully implant inside the uterus, and embryos can be FROZEN and successfully implanted in a uterus, why can't doctors attempt to reposition a fetus that is growing in the wrong place? I hope there is research in this area.

[Here is a continuation of my previous post, that I separated into two parts for greater clarity]

In regards to cancer, there are also methods of curing that could pose zero threat to the baby. Read "The China Study" where it was found that:

1) People in countries/regions that eat a predominantly plant-based diet have HUGELY lower to ZERO rates of cancer, compared to those who consume a diet with a significant amount of animal products.

2.) Two groups of rats were exposed to Aflatoxin, one of the most highly carcinogenic compounds known. One group of rats was fed a diet that included 20 percent of the milk protein casein and the other group of rats was fed a diet that was vegan. 100 percent of the rats in the group that ate the diet containing animal products got cancer and ZERO percent of the rats in the group that ate a vegan diet got cancer. Americans typically consume a diet that includes approximately 20 percent animal products.

3.) Studies on human cells showed that cancer cell growth could be started and stopped based on what those cells were fed. Further tests indicate that a diet including up to 5 percent animal product had no effect on cancer cell growth, but that as the animal product intake increasing beyond that, the rate of cancer growth increased in proportion to that.

4) In conclusion based on these and many, MANY other studies that are documented in this book, genes and environmental factors can determine what type of cancer or illness you are likely to get, but your diet will determine whether or not you fall ill to them.

Vegetable juicing shows huge promise and there are hundreds of testimonies of people who have cured their diseases using this approach. If a cancer patient were to go on a juice fast of only water and juices of vegetables or fruits with strong anti-cancer properties (freshly juiced, RAW, organic produce--pasteurized bottled juices would have no positive effect), they would be forcing the cancer cells to consume glucose in a form which contained deadly nutrients (deadly for the cancer cells, but not the healthy cells!). The stage of cancer that a person had would determine how much solid or liquid food they consumed, though cancer patients often have such a hard time assimilating proper nutrition, that juicing provides the most nutrition with the least demand on the body's digestive capabilities.

Sorry for the rabbit trail, but I needed to mention at least some supporting evidence to these alternatives, in order to make this point: there are viable alternative therapies that would actually pose no risk to the fetus; on the contrary, it would be incredibly healthy for the fetus and the mom.

I'm sure you're right about the benefits of a full fruit / vegetables diet, but only if you're in a situation where you need to flush your system. It's hard to have a sufficiently varied diet without eating any meat, and vegans tend to be malnourished as a result (esp children).

Given, I've read that cutting back on beef and eating more fish / chicken is good for your health, and there's certainly no reason not to eat plenty of fruit and vegetables._________________Homeschool Articles - Events - Support Groups

I agree with you in that even if one does not accept a diet with little to no meat as a permanent way of eating, that a fruit and vegetable cleansing diet would at least be beneficial during the cancer treatment period for a pregnant woman. However, why get cancer in the first place, when there is good evidence that you never have to? If a mother does not discover she has cancer until it is at stage three or four, she may then find herself in the position of choosing a conventional treatment which recommends the aborting of her baby. For this reason, I offer some more support of the whole foods, plant based diet, to prevent this outcome.

Actually, it is very possible to succeed on a vegan diet with no meat, IF the diet is rich in uncooked green leafy vegetables, sprouted grains, nuts and seeds, and fruits. There are a good number of "processed food vegans" out there, who don't eat enough fresh fruits and veggies, possibly resulting in the malnourished individuals that you speak of. I personally believe that some meat is fine (though not necessarily ideal), because I come from a Christian perspective that realizes that God allows us to consume meat. It is important to keep in mind though, that in biblical times they ate far less animal products than we do today in America. The evidence in the China Study shows that up to five percent of a diet could contain animal products, which, per my calculations, for someone on a 2500 calorie diet is approximately a steak per week...or no meat, but a small amount of milk or cheese each day (note: the author of the China Study recommends simply abstaining from all animal products, because he is concerned that people wouldn't closely follow the five percent allowance). However, God's original plan was for us to be vegetarian, a plan that existed from creation until after the global flood. Only then did he finally give permission, but not command, us to eat meat (except to the Israelites in certain religious feasts). Interestingly, in heaven there won't be any death or suffering and we will be eating like we were in the very beginning. I know this appeal to Biblical history/prophecy probably won't persuade those of you who do not accept the Bible as historical fact (but check out www.answersingenesis.org for stunning Bible-based scientific research, that gives us confidence in the Bible). Anyhow, our bodies are still well-equipped to function primarily or even solely on a plant-based diet.

When we eat, say, chicken, cooking will denature a good bit of the protein that is in there and then our body needs to break down the protein molecules into their building blocks of amino acids. Then our body reassembles these amino acids to form proteins that our body can then assimilate. Leafy greens contain ALL the essential amino acids required to form protein and when we consume them raw, our body can start right away with these building blocks to form protein—actually making protein from this source easier to assimilate than that from an animal source. Here is a link with more info on this topic: http://www.livingtreecommunity.com/store2/abugree.asp
The author of this excerpt, Victoria Boutenko, wrote an excellent book called “Green for Life,” which contains many interesting charts that compare the nutritional profiles of meat and other foods to varying leafy green vegetables. These charts show how adequate vegetables really are in supporting our body's needs. Calcium and all other essential nutrients are available in plant foods. She makes the point that chimpanzees have extremely similar digestive tracts and other internal systems to ours and that we would do well to observe their eating habits. I assume that she believes in evolution, which I do not, though I still think she makes a valid comparison. To me, I think this is one of the reasons that God created apes to look so similar to us—knowing through time humans would get so far off track with their diet, that they would need a reminder for how to eat better.

I know this is starting to veer us off-topic, but I mean it as a support to my statements in earlier posts that alternative cancer treatments and diet (a whole foods, plant-based diet in particular) can support a healthy pregnancy and eliminate the supposed need to abort a baby during a time of serious, life-threatening illness.

The single most important thing you can do is take folic acid supplements during pregnancy, this greatly decreases the chances of birth defects and complications.

As for leafy greens, you'd have to eat a large variety of greens to get the full array of amino acids, and the human body isn't as well-designed for digesting greens as that of, say, a horse or cow. That 5% meat you mention is probably quite essential.

(incidently, humans before the Flood had little or no genetic damage, were living in a hyperbaric atmosphere, and may have had different digestive bacteria for all we know - I'm not sure that situation compares)_________________Homeschool Articles - Events - Support Groups

Well... it was actually mass sterilization that was primarily promoted by eugenicists, not abortion or contraception. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was not a eugenicist - she just wanted to kill as many babies as possible and didn't much care whether they were black babies or white babies or poor babies or rich babies. Eugenicists of the time largely despised her. And contraception is voluntary, obviously of no use for eugenics.

The real reason why half of abortions have been black (assuming those figures are correct) is that abortions correlate to lack of income. Poorer people tend to have a lot more children outside of marriage, and a large percentage of those are aborted rather than kept to term. Since blacks (on average) are poorer than whites, you would expect a disproportionate number of abortions to be black. So it's not racism, it's just - to be absolutely blunt - where the money is.

And in the end, does it really matter? A baby killed is a baby killed, it shouldn't matter to you if the baby dies because of racism or because the mom just doesn't want to mess up her career._________________Homeschool Articles - Events - Support Groups